Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Qutteineh v. Litton Loan Servicing Doc.

2
Case 3:07-mc-80250-CRB Document 2 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


10
For the Northern District of California

11 MOHAMAD B. QUTTEINEH, No. Misc. C 07-80250 CRB


United States District Court

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH


LEAVE TO AMEND
13 v.
14 LITTON LOAN SERVICING, et al.,
15 Defendants.
/
16
17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against “LITTON LOAN SERVICING,
18 US Vessel DOES, ROES, and MOES 1-100 et al, US Vessel” as a miscellaneous action.
19 Plaintiff’s papers are incomprehensible and it is impossible for the Court to discern the basis
20 for plaintiff’s lawsuit. It appears that plaintiff is demanding approximately $30 million from
21 Litton Loan Servicing, but even that fact is unclear and the Court cannot discern the basis for
22 the demand.
23 Accordingly, plaintiff’s “action” is DISMISSED with 20 days leave to amend. If
24 plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff must file a complaint that clearly
25 identifies the parties and the claims that plaintiff is making and the facts that support his or
26 //
27 //
28 //

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:07-mc-80250-CRB Document 2 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2

1 her claims. Citation to random legal authorities is not sufficient to state a claim.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: October 31, 2007
CHARLES R. BREYER
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
For the Northern District of California

11
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2007\80250misc\orderdismissal1.wpd 2